1 
                  
                                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
                                           GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG 
                                                                                              CASE NO:   2013/24397 
                                                                                                                        
                 In the matter between: 
                 NEW HEIGHTS DEVELOPERS (PTY) LTD                                                             Applicant 
                                                                                                                        
                 And 
                 BOGATSU, MANANA SHEREEN                                                                   Respondent 
                  
                                      SUMMARY- MAIN JUDGMENT AND LEAVE TO APPEAL 
                  
                 SPILG, J: 
                 COMPANIES ACT 71 OF 2008:  
                 Section 165 demand; 
                        Certain parts of a s 165 demand were overtaken by events. Held: The mere 
                         fact that the demand may cover extraneous matters does not render the other 
                         terms of the demand pro non scripto  
                        The real issue is whether the recipient of the notice would understand it to be 
                         one in terms of s 165 and that a failure to respond would trigger the provisions 
                         of that section. 
                        The demand was not vexatious nor one falling outside s 165. The respondent 
                         was seeking through court proceedings to protect the interest of company A 
                         which it was alleged was the single largest shareholder in  company B and 
                         that on the papers, even assuming that the shares of company B had been 
                         transferred to the other shareholder of  company A, no payment had been 
                         made for such  shares.  
                                                                                                                      2 
                  
                 S 165: Interpretation of Statutes 
                        The phrase in s165(2)  “or take related steps” is not surplusage. It covers the 
                         situation where a party is sued as a co-respondent (even if only by reason of 
                         a possible interest) but wishes to establish a lis between itself and the other 
                         respondents either as a co-applicant or an applicant in reconvention.  
                         Otherwise substance (and therefore the purpose of the legislation) would give 
                         way to form.  
                        The  presumption that every word is intended to have its own meaning gains 
                         weight where the section expressly replaces the entire body of common law 
                         on derivative actions and when regard is also had to the processes the 
                         legislation went through before it was finally enacted.